OK – You have again missed the difference between Rights and Responsibility – This baby has rights that override the parent’s – the baby is not a chattel or a piece of furniture – the child is no-ones property

Parent(s) have RESPONSIBILITY to and for their children – simply put if they are unable or unwilling to exercise their responsibility(s) for whatever reasons, then Courts have an absolute Duty to get the best outcome they can for the child based on EVIDENCE that is and should be tested. Local authorities have an absolute Duty in law to intervene on behalf of a child where that child is in need of protection from significant harm.

Courts are bound by the ‘nothing else will do’ principle – as in this case, nothing else would do in the (slight?) hope, (for that is what it came down to), that this mum would be safe to care for her child and not resume or go into a new dangerous realtionship at the expense of her child who does not have a say in parent(s) choices.

At 14 months old there was clearly a period of 60 weeks prior to the final orders whereby the situation of the parents could have been changed. From the facts that I have read, the judge had no option but to rule in the way that he did. Let’s hope that the child is adopted quickly to ensure continuity in the life of that child. There are far too many abused children in society and sadly also far too many people who should never be allowed to be parents.

Actually “harmed”?-I assume you mean physically……… please revisit the definition of significant harm and the threshold to issue proceedings.

I find your confidence that removal was unnecessary astounding – unless you are involved in this? If not then you have limited information with which to make such a massive assumption.

Risk cannot be obliterated in life but it would be reckless to just leave children in situations where the level of risk is such that “surveillance” would needed. That’s a completely unrealistic and inappropriate way to manage risk – do you think surveillance would be a normal experience for the child?

So parents are irredeemable? Considering there is no statement that the child was abused, this outcome is (whilst sadly predictable in the climate that prevails) against the principles of supporting families to remain together. Life is risk. You cannot remove all risks. “Not engaging” with professionals can have many causes. If professionals have not accurately gauged a parent’s parenting skills, come across as heavy-handed and unfair, it naturall makes a parent defensive. Sometimes it’s simply because they (in all validity) cannot see why the authority is interfering in their lives. It may be a question of the right approach to explain to this parent and they may then be more willing to listen. There are cases where disinclination to engage is extremely understandable too: https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/07/29/social-workers-criticised-reprehensible-behaviour-adoption-case/ “In the light of their unprofessional behaviour and their negative view of him both as a father and as an individual, as expressed in their evidence, there can be little wonder if the father finds it hard to trust the local authority and work with them from time to time,” the judge said.”

But either way, so long as the child is not harmed they do have that right. When a child has not been actually harmed and a parent has acknowledged changes they need to make and demonstrated good parenting, I can see no valid reason to remove a child. Surveillance should have been enough. Far too many children are being taken and the ripple effect is huge, the damage to all lives, including the child’s is unacceptable, when there was no necessity to remove them.